NationStates Jolt Archive

I see that Yelda has submitted a proposal, which has already reached quorum, that hasn’t been mentioned yet in this forum _

Patients Rights Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Yeldan UN Mission

Description: NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

Co-Authored by: Waterana

Approvals: 135 (Capetola XII, Former English Colony, Wyfind, Fryk, Daehesra, Merinium, Britannic Colonies, Maxovia, Anarcorockers, Disquietude, Taeguki, Anitsilas, Gunfreak, Errinundera, Glendina, ShivaShiva, Premitra, Tolene, Cadburybars, Randomplaceland, Wondonia, Dragoon Empire III, Tarmsden, Miketopea, Lollipalooza, St Barth, Jey, Ramilas, Rubina, Kirigakure Shinobi, Frei fur Allem, Regius, Sand And Dispair, TheDanielRecord, Livonian Order, So1idus, SocialistRepublica, Powderland, The Hall of Two Truths, Erissia, Dez2, Kunkindo, Zasavje org, Penguinlanden, Republic of Freedonia, Trutonia, Intangelon, Gahinas, Gralat, Arborya, Ferristoya, Lygonia, Ultrasilvania, Naughtyham, South Bixxaver, Arcanus Imperii, Azuni, SPASTIC COLON, Hexanus, Belarum, The Artificial Green, Asablam, Desert Storm Iraq, Uduwudu, Qinqe, CAOAPO, D41k57, Brunelian BG advocates, Pithica, Bonnerland, Adolf Barham, Omskakas, Cermaz, Chandelier, Botim, Lnferno, Ultravibe, Akmal, Treblatas, Oklahomasooners, Firebert, Defenestratium, Uhl, Wolfhawk, Singring, Snafuna, New Hamilton, America---, Wootelania, Ultimate WTF, Imperial Hubris, Fozziebearia, Luna Crystal Paws, Trauburg, Aqua-Sulis, Arlington Road, Technopolis2000, Wickedly evil people, Esbam, The Phi-An-Tum, Cape Cod Hanes Port, Brozvakia, Sidosermo Indah, Huakan, Ronrovia, Wursten, Moral Highs, Ahsmenistan, IdMor, Kao-nohio-ka-la, Cochim, Eve the First, Bladela, Otaku Stratus, Hayden Island, Z2488, Voicetrack, Istenbul, Chadlie, Novalis and Nicktown, Momenta, Hanzistantopia, Dirtied Towels, Elengwaith, Zadania, Ceorana, Aetheronian Republics, Clarinettic Geeks, Cire Nallehs, Crapzakistan, Staplespoon, Prickles, OCR, Grendiland, Arglemeton)
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!


Okay, so the basic principle that nobody should be denied medical assistance looks good — and some people might consider it a basic enough right that forcing this policy on all nations is justifiable — but I can see some potential difficulties with this particular proposal.

Firstly, there’s the clause “(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights” _ This apparently deprive national governments of the power to ban any specific types of medical treatment on the basis of (for example) safety or morality. The wording of the section about “immunity” looks a bit clumsy to me: Is it actually nations whose immunity under past resolutions is meant to be recognised, rather than the citizens? If it isn’t the nations then there would seem to be an illegal clash with the ‘Abortion Legality Convention’: I expect that that was the meaning which the author intended, but it could definitely be better-worded…

Secondly, the term “citizens” that’s used in clause ‘(II)’ may be inappropriate in the cases of some nations’ inhabitants, so that the more general term ‘nationals’ would be more appropriate.

Thirdly, as clause ‘(II)’ doesn’t specify that this right only applies “within the nations to which they are native”, and clause ‘(VIII)’ specifically denies medical personnel the right to discriminate on the basis of nationality, this would seem to guarantee the right of anybody from any UN member-nation to demand medical treatment in any UN member-nation rather than just in their native one… The government of St Edmund wouldn’t actually be averse to a resolution guaranteeing some level of essential medical treatments for travellers abroad, but this proposal seems to go much further than we would be happy with by allowing “health tourists” to go wherever they choose for ‘elective’ procedures – even purely vanity-based ones – too. This could lead to the health systems of the more advanced & more prosperous nations getting overloaded by visitors from less advanced &/or poorer states, to some governments deliberately reducing their own expenditure on healthcare because they decide to send many of their sick abroad for treatment, to increased prejudice against foreigners in nations where “health tourists” are seen to be exploiting public health systems that are funded by taxing the local populations, and to related problems…

Fourthly, who’s supposed to be paying for all these treatments? The absolute right to any treatment that a doctor will agree to carry out which would be guaranteed under clauses ‘(I)’ & ‘(II)’ of this proposal would seem to require abolishing any current requirements that might exist for a guarantee of payment before treatment begins, even for ‘elective’ procedures – even ones that are just for the sake of vanity – unless local rules allow the doctors involved themselves to refuse treatment in such cases: Although this wouldn’t make it impossible to bill the patients afterwards it would make it a lot easier for people to get treatment without actually being able to afford this and thus harm not only the insurance industry but the actual healthcare providers too... and collecting payments still due from any foreign patients who had gone home again could be very tricky. (Memo to legal staff; Make sure that adequate provision for collecting bills from abroad is included in the ‘International Trade Law Centres’ proposal that’s being drafted…)

Fifthly, the confidentiality guaranteed under clauses ‘(VI)’ & ‘(VII)’ doesn’t allow for notifying the authorities about carriers of contagious diseases, and would severely hinder the management of quarantine systems.

Sixthly, the age-threshold mentioned in clause ‘(IX)’ would be inappropriate for some of the sapient species that are present within certain UN member-nations.

Firstly, there’s the clause “(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights”
I don't think it's illegal. ALC means nations do not have to recognise a right to abortion; the immunity line obviously refers to nations.

Secondly, the term “citizens” that’s used in clause ‘(II)’ may be inappropriate in the cases of some nations’ inhabitants, so that the more general term ‘nationals’ would be more appropriate.
Don't point that out! There's some good loophole potential there.

Thirdly, as clause ‘(II)’ doesn’t specify that this right only applies “within the nations to which they are native”, and clause ‘(VIII)’ specifically denies medical personnel the right to discriminate on the basis of nationality, this would seem to guarantee the right of anybody from any UN member-nation to demand medical treatment in any UN member-nation rather than just in their native one…
I disagree with where I think you're going with this. This proposal doesn't mean nations have to perform the operation; they just can't block it from being formed. Now, that discrimination clause (about which I do actually have some concerns - there are times when doctors obviously should take such considerations into mind) doesn't exclude "being able to pay for it". This isn't a socialised medicine proposal, so I don't see it as making governments have to provide for such procedures. As such, the funding of them is to me entirely separate for this proposal. So in this case, someone could be denied treatment, because they haven't paid for it - and in countries where there is socialised medicine, have not contributed to it through taxation. That would not to me seem to be illegal discrimination.

Fourthly, who’s supposed to be paying for all these treatments?
Well exactly: there is no provision for this in the proposal, which means it's a national right, still. Having a right to undergo medical procedures does not mean they need be done for free. For example, all UN citizens have a right to a toilet (Resolution #9). Doesn't mean they don't still have to buy one; it just means they cannot be actively prevented from having such. If you're worried, simply write it into all health workers' contracts that they may not administer treatment until payment is received.

Fifthly, the confidentiality guaranteed under clauses ‘(VI)’ & ‘(VII)’ doesn’t allow for notifying the authorities about carriers of contagious diseases, and would severely hinder the management of quarantine systems.
Hmm. There's nothing about it in Epidemic Prevention Protocol. I don't see how this would be a problem, in that if one has a contagious disease, then one can still be isolated.

StEd - why do you keep putting Yelda's name in bold text?

I've actually de-approved this, because it doesn't give law enforcement personnel to view medical records when they may need to see them.

I agree with Ceorana.

Also (II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

Gives too much power to the patient; the balance is wrong. Patients will soon begin to demand hugely expensive (read: heavily marketed) drugs that do little extra for their health, crippling national health budgets. Not to mention surgery that is very nearly, but not quite, cosmetic. And heart bypass operations on a whim, like in one episode of Scrubs.

I've actually de-approved this, because it doesn't give law enforcement personnel to view medical records when they may need to see them.

Your Law Enforcement would need probably cause, and a search warrant to view their medical records.

If people do not take care of their bodies, why should we be force to treat them?

(VII) (VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient. Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.This could be a problem as doctors need to give orders to nurses and other hospital staff thus must pass on information that was in the consultation. Same with medical records nurses and other hospital staff need to view these often getting patient consent is not practical even impossible. Especialy if a doctor in ER gets in a patient who goes into a coma before any consent is given and the only one who has any knowledge of his problem might be the doctor. As saw that treatment can be given without consent in emergency but nothing on opening medical records to third parties. In this part(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

Also there is some concern on this part(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.As if the only two people know this patients health status then how is anyone going to know if they are a health rish or not. As all the patient has to do is not give consent to the doctor to release that information to a third party. The doctor can't even tell anyone the patient came in and refused treatment or care. Also he can't show the signed refusal to third parties since it would be part of the medical records and consent must be gotten to release those to third parties.
Hmm. There's nothing about it in Epidemic Prevention Protocol. I don't see how this would be a problem, in that if one has a contagious disease, then one can still be isolated.Wrong all the patient has to do is refuse treatment and the doctor can say nothing as long as they sign a form saying this. As stated since that form becomes part of medical records only patient and doctor know about it. Even if a doctor puts them in hospital unless patient gives consent he can't talk to anyone about why patient is in the hospital without patient consent.


This part is redundant in that it deals with issues of discrimination that may already be eliminated in another resolution.(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.So why do we need it for patients when healty non patients may have this.. and for sure don't need to give it to just them when healty non patients don't have it. before all people get same.

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;Somebody has a duty to the patient to set standards of practice for medical staff and inspect them to see they meet these standards. Thus if not government who? As this one don't turn any UN gnomes loose to enforce it. so who does?

The balance of power this resolution brings up shifts from the first private individual to the doctor treating the patient, which in my opinion defeats the goal the submitter seeks to achieve.

As stated in operative clause 3 A) (which it should be, letters come before roman in the GA forum):

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

This completely reverses the balance of power the resolution tries to implement earlier when empowering the patient to practically retaining the absolute say in their treatment, because this brings up the question of a doctors liability, which in many UN member states is a controversial topic.

Also, this resolution does not show any compromises at all to a UN member state's adopted policy on treatment such as Euthanasia or use of drugs forbidden in certain member states. Should a citizen of a nation where marijuana is illegal be treated for the account on using such a drug in another UN member state where this resolution is implemented, he/she may face difficulties in acquiring further dosage of the medication as it is illegal in the respective nation.

Question to the forum: Is it possible to amend this resolution in any way, or do you adopt simply a revisit of the topic where we only vote over the resolution as it stands?

Question to the forum: Is it possible to amend this resolution in any way, or do you adopt simply a revisit of the topic where we only vote over the resolution as it stands?
No. You can't make amendments. All you can do is vote this down or repeal it if passes.

^ Thank you very much for your answer.

If that is the case I urge all member states to vote against this resolution as it does not make any approach to compromising a nation's policy on restricted medicines or drugs such as euthanasia.

Sorry, but we are either against or abstaining on this.

^ Thank you very much for your answer.

If that is the case I urge all member states to vote against this resolution as it does not make any approach to compromising a nation's policy on restricted medicines or drugs such as euthanasia.

Sorry, but we are either against or abstaining on this.
You are aware euthanasia is already legal by UN law?

You are aware euthanasia is already legal by UN law?

What? which resolution is this, and does it not clearly intervene with the nation's own adopted policy, perhaps?

Resolution #43, "Legalise Euthanasia".

And yes, it does.

^ But by all means, that completely ridicules all future resolutions on the UN's agenda which may intervene with a government policy.

Truly then, whether this resolution is passed or not will not have an effect on the nation deeming euthanasia as an illegal drug? What then is the point in repealing it, if no amendments are allowed?
It would seem completely apathetic resolve or not acknowledging this resolution would suffice when opposing it.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. All I'm saying is that this proposal has no effect on euthanasia, because euthanasia is legal under UN law.

Okay, so the basic principle that nobody should be denied medical assistance looks good — and some people might consider it a basic enough right that forcing this policy on all nations is justifiable

Indeed. We would be willing to support it on those grounds.


Firstly, there’s the clause “(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights” _ This apparently deprive national governments of the power to ban any specific types of medical treatment on the basis of (for example) safety or morality.

That's simple enough. Redefine "medical procedure" in your national legislation so that it excludes procedures you object to. If they're not legally considered medical procedures in your nation, you wouldn't be in violation of this resolution.


Secondly, the term “citizens” that’s used in clause ‘(II)’ may be inappropriate in the cases of some nations’ inhabitants, so that the more general term ‘nationals’ would be more appropriate.


Agreed.


Thirdly, as clause ‘(II)’ doesn’t specify that this right only applies “within the nations to which they are native”, and clause ‘(VIII)’ specifically denies medical personnel the right to discriminate on the basis of nationality, this would seem to guarantee the right of anybody from any UN member-nation to demand medical treatment in any UN member-nation rather than just in their native one… The government of St Edmund wouldn’t actually be averse to a resolution guaranteeing some level of essential medical treatments for travellers abroad, but this proposal seems to go much further than we would be happy with by allowing “health tourists” to go wherever they choose for ‘elective’ procedures – even purely vanity-based ones – too. This could lead to the health systems of the more advanced & more prosperous nations getting overloaded by visitors from less advanced &/or poorer states, to some governments deliberately reducing their own expenditure on healthcare because they decide to send many of their sick abroad for treatment, to increased prejudice against foreigners in nations where “health tourists” are seen to be exploiting public health systems that are funded by taxing the local populations, and to related problems…


Not really a problem. The resolution doesn't prevent you from placing prohibitively high costs on non-essential medical procedures for "health tourists". You'd be in conformity with the resolution: granting them access, but they would have to pay.


Fifthly, the confidentiality guaranteed under clauses ‘(VI)’ & ‘(VII)’ doesn’t allow for notifying the authorities about carriers of contagious diseases, and would severely hinder the management of quarantine systems.


That probably needs rewording, yes.

Your Law Enforcement would need probably cause, and a search warrant to view their medical records.

Probable cause is what is established during an investigation that allows you to actually charge someone with a crime. Often, you need the records to get to the level of probable cause. If law enforcement can acquire the medical records with a subpoena (which does not require probable cause) during an investigation, this should not be a problem. A search warrant should not be used under these circumstances - it's overkill. If a search warrant was required to get this type of material during an investigation, law enforcement investigations would slow to a snail's pace. I would not vote for any bill with a privacy clause that required a search warrant to get records.

This resolution calls that any citizen may undergo any medical procedure, except as previously called against by a previous resolution. Therefore, because of two simple things, this resolution cannot be enacted.

1. Eugenics. You can't let a person kill themselves.
2. Abortion. This resolution simply gives a person the ability to have an abortion at anytime. Read it, that's what it can be used for.

Two simple reasons that we absolutely cannot affirm this resolution.

1. Eugenics. You can't let a person kill themselves.
Eugenics is a kind of racial engineering. The word you're looking for it "euthanasia"; that is already legal under UN law, so this proposal does not affect it.

2. Abortion. This resolution simply gives a person the ability to have an abortion at anytime. Read it, that's what it can be used for.
Not true. Resolution #147 gives nations the right to decide their own abortion laws; this proposal cannot override that.

Two simple reasons that we absolutely cannot affirm this resolution.
Looks more like two obvious examples of why reading the passed resolutions is a good idea.

The Principality of Ronclone is interested in supporting this resolution if the author could clarify the distinction between a citizen of a nation and a patient. The document at once seems to confirm a patients right to privacy and accept that only citizens of a nation are capable of receiving fair treatment.

Our principality consists of a desert region with a large nomadic population of Brehavians that live within our borders for four months out of the year. Will they expect the same level of care from a hosbital that a citizen of our country receives? Will they require the same privacy of their records, even though they often do not pay taxes leaving the citizens of the country to pay for their treatment?

The Brehavian people are friendly and peaceful, and the Principality of Ronclone has often supported providing the same level of medical treatment to the tribe that our citizens receive because the burden has not been overwhelming to this point. Although, there are many patients that request medical services while they are in our country legally, should each of them expect the same level of care and privacy that a citizen expects?

Seeing as how euthanasia is not an issue and it checks out I am leaning for this resolution. But...


That's simple enough. Redefine "medical procedure" in your national legislation so that it excludes procedures you object to. If they're not legally considered medical procedures in your nation, you wouldn't be in violation of this resolution.


OOC: Exactly how do I do that?

OOC: Exactly how do I do that?
OOC: Me again. Implementing resolutions is roleplay. There is no game function for determining how resolutions are implemented, so you decide how to do it.

I vote for, because; that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment. In a nation where freedom is real, then the goverment have no saying at all.

This Resolution, specifically Article IV ("Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved"), puts our nation in an uncomfortable position. As it stands, we must either vote against the entire Resolution - which we otherwise support - or compromise our cloning program. The only third alternative, that we can see, is to refuse human rights to our nation's clones, a step which we have been trying to avoid. So unless any of you out there have any brilliant ideas, the region of Noreaster votes against this Resolution.

The only third alternative, that we can see, is to refuse human rights to our nation's clones, a step which we have been trying to avoid.
You can't do (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=55) that:
The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.

Ausserland has voted NO and respectfully urges our colleagues to do likewise. The rights of patients are important and, in general, this resolution does a commendable job of establishing protection for them. However, it contains one clause which we find extremely dangerous and completely unacceptable:

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

We would happily agree to a reasonable provision for privacy of medical records. But this provision would prevent all release of medical records without consent of the patient, even if sought pursuant to a lawfully and properly issued subpoena or warrant. Prosecution for health insurance fraud (a major concern) in which the "patients" were accomplices would be hamstrung. Action against physicians who perform illegal medical procedures would be next to impossible if the patient was a party to the crime or feels he or she would be embarrassed.

The resolution would also prevent access to patient records if the patient was deceased. He or she could not give consent. This could have devastating consequences for anything involving culpable negligence on the part of a physician: prosecutions for manslaughter, wrongful death lawsuits, and actions by medical licensing agencies and health care accreditation organizations. It would even prevent any meaningful studies of hospital morbidity rates.

We deeply regret that the author of this proposal chose to submit it without the benefit of comment in this forum or elsewhere. We believe that a reasonable accommodation of our objection could have been reached. As it is, we must strongly oppose this badly and dangerously flawed legislation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

So the whole point behind ensuring the well being of the citizens of our nations is so that they can be more efficient workers?

The resolution would also prevent access to patient records if the patient was deceased. He or she could not give consent.


Actually, no. The resolution also says that in cases where the patient cannot give consent(ie. death), the person who has the authority to release medical records would be thier doctor.

Actually, no. The resolution also says that in cases where the patient cannot give consent(ie. death), the person who has the authority to release medical records would be thier doctor.
Yes, exactly. And if they died because of malpractice on the part of that doctor, then there would be a problem.

Actually, no. The resolution also says that in cases where the patient cannot give consent(ie. death), the person who has the authority to release medical records would be thier doctor.

Not true. Nowhere does it say the doctor can authorize release of the records. Without consent of the patient or legal guardian, the records can't be released. Period. That's what the resolution says. If we've missed something, please point out exactly where in the resolution it says anything about doctors being able to authorize release.

And let's say we're totally wrong. Let's say the doctor could authorize release. A doctor who's being charged with manslaughter is going to authorize release of records that prove the case? A doctor being sued for wrongful death through negligence is going to release the records?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yes, exactly. And if they died because of malpractice on the part of that doctor, then there would be a problem.

Hmm makes a good point.

I guess the only way to get around that would be to subpoena the doctor and/or the insitution he is working for, including nurses, his staff and anyone previous health care providers.

Hey where is a question, what about health care insurance claims? Will insurance claims be allow to do investigative work on any insurance claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noreastern Elbonia
The only third alternative, that we can see, is to refuse human rights to our nation's clones, a step which we have been trying to avoid.

You can't do that:
Quote:
The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.


Well, then, since we cannot afford to compromise our cloning program, and since there is no third option, the region of Noreaster is strongly against this Resolution.

Sorry, I misread the law, it only works that way in cases of adult conjoined twins which cannot make thier own medical decisions.

In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

This is a state by state matter period. I urge you all to vote no.

While I agree with most of the contents, I do not feel it is in the NSUN's best interest to force this legislation on each member nation.

Leave it up to each country to decide this issue.

Leave it up to each country to decide this issue.

I agree. I really dont think all NS UN nations should have all the same patient's rights laws, but i do like this resolution. However I strongly oppose the reasoning behind the resolution.

NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive

In order for the UN to remain fair and balanced, and thus to remain an effective governing body, it must accept some issues as those that can only be dealt with on a national level. If this Resolution passes, Noreastern Elbonia will be forced to resign from the UN, as we are sure will other nations who have strong vested interests that are threatened by this Resolution. The same would be true if the UN were to mandate that all member nations must hold fair elections (I hope that this has not already happened); if it did happen, nations which do not hold elections, such as my own, would be more likely to resign from the UN than to change their ways in such a significant manner. And if so many nations from the same type of government or for the same political or social reasons were to leave the UN, the UN itself would suffer greatly from no longer being ably to levy any power over its former members. In essence, the UN does not want to drive away member nations, particularly those from stricter political idealogies. And a Resolution such as this one, which threatens our and probably outher cloning programs, will force away many nations.

We want to remain in the UN. Please, vote against this Resolution.

The Dominion of Teufelanbetung must also vote against this resolution due to the issues it has with law enforcement and medical records. We believe that law abiding citizens are efficent citizens. While we do respect patient's rights and confiendiality, this resolution gives leaves too much in the patients' hands. We must also have some room for law enforcement to investigate if need be.

For this reason, this nation says nay and encourages fellow UN members to do the same.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

Tzorsland will vote NO on this resolution and will politely urge others to do likewise. We are not against the notion of patient rights, but these rights will do patients more harm than good. The biggest problems is that medical quacks can hide behind the banner of "patients rights." They can con patients into undergoing dangerous or even dubious procedures. They can hide their bad records from patients under the guise of patients rights. It even gives a doctor an incentive to kill a patient because only the patient and the doctor can make the record public.

I'm getting a little tired of this. Doesn't anyone discuss resolutions here in the forum before they submit them? This new attempt to stealth ram resolutions down the queue is getting a little tiring. This is a potentially good resolution that has simply too many loose ends and bad assumptions.

This is my first vote and I am going to have to vote against this resolution. For the fact that my government gets to regulated medical care, and patient rights, since my government is the one who is paying for these expense. If the UN wants to help with the cost of medical care to all people of UN Nation in the USS, then the Nation of Sweetness will support it, until then, we mean no disrespect as we attempt to shoot down this resolution.

The only third alternative, that we can see, is to refuse human rights to our nation's clones, a step which we have been trying to avoid. So unless any of you out there have any brilliant ideas, the region of Noreaster votes against this Resolution.You don't have to worry about the clones as they have full rights equal to those of humans under this:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.
Votes For: 12,135
Votes Against: 4,726
Implemented: Thu May 6 2004Until it is off the table you have to treat them as equals.

Nowhere does it say the doctor can authorize release of the records. Without consent of the patient or legal guardian, the records can't be released. Period. That's what the resolution says. If we've missed something, please point out exactly where in the resolution it says anything about doctors being able to authorize release.We have not found where a doctor can give consent unless the patient says they can. Thus would also like to see where that is given here. Also we have trouble finding where even a guardian can give consent.

And let's say we're totally wrong. Let's say the doctor could authorize release. A doctor who's being charged with manslaughter is going to authorize release of records that prove the case? A doctor being sued for wrongful death through negligence is going to release the records?The same with the idea the patient can refuse release of information or their records. As if a patient has an illness that may mean he is to be isolated from society all he has to do is write out a no release clause and the doctors hands are tied. As that becomes part of their medical records and.... since the patient and doctor consulted on the issue... neither can be given over to third parties without patient consent. Also in cases of death by poison where a family member gave the person one if they the guardian do you think they would give consent for lawofficers to view the records that would show the patient was poisoned and what type was used. Doctors can't release them and since no third parties see these then who would know? Who could find out? A big one would be for collection of insurance after a death, as why would one release records to an insurance company showing a person died of causes not covered in the policy.

Nay, this is a really bad resolution as is.. Please, everybody vote no!

For some reason this seems like nothing more then...... never mind for now. >_>


(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.
What about dangerous procedures being pushed by quacks? What about a nation's right to make a choice about which procedures they don't think should be done?

Also, I'm not sure why we need I & II because they both seem to do the same thing.


(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.
What about contagious diseases, rape, child abuse etc.

So do we now have to get rid of all our laws and plans for dealing with contagious diseases?


(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.
What about criminal investigations?


(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.
So now we have to offer our medical services to illegals?

And could you please specify what those "other such grounds" are? What if someone tries to argue that not having enough money for their cosmetic surgery is one of those such grounds?


Co-Authored by: Waterana
*cough*

Somehow I thought so......

Sorry, but it looks like it's going to pass. Personally I think a good rule would be that all new resolutions MUST be discussed on the forums before being put up for vote. But oh well. How long do Resolutions stay on the table, anyway?

Looking for a way to stay in the UN,
Muzquin Remoraz,
Premier,
Noreastern Elbonia

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.


Now we are all for the rights of patients but we are concerned about this clause and therefore will be voting against this resolution. What we are concerned about is that this prevents us from restricting the use of certain treatments. I know that euthanasia has been legalized by the UN, but I will use it as an example to show my point.

The patient wishes to be euthanized which, due to Resolution #43 is legal in my nation. The bill allowed us to set the 'certain age' after which it would be legal which we set to be 10000 (we firmly believe anyone living 10 millenia should have that right), but theoretically if this were only a restriction we had put in by our own means (imagine there never was the resolution 43) then the patient could claim that we were infringing on his/her rights by placing this restriction in, forcing us to allow the procedure.

Additionally, an example that was put in earlier was Eugenics. Our people dabbled in eugenics in the past and it resulted in our Eugenics War in which a small group of genetically enhanced men attempted to gain control and eliminate all those who had not been 'enhanced'. Since that time genetic engineering of humanoids has been banned for all but a strictly enforced set of exceptions (severe genetic conditions, etc.). If this resolution is passed mothers will be able to claim that this is a treatment for their children to make them healthier, and we fear that we would not be able to legally deny this.

We strongly urge you all to vote against this. The current numbers can be changed.

Please.

(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

My problem with this part is in the views of different religions. Certain religions believe that your blood is sacred and would rather die than receive a transfusion. In the event of something rendering a patient unable to give his or her consent, the medical treatment a doctor might prescribe may be completely against all religious and moral beliefs.

Well I have completed my campaign for the night. I just spent the last 2 and a half hours contacting the UN delegates who have voted for this resolution thus far and contacted them in an attempt to change their mind. I'm tired, and so I bid you all ado for the night.

We want to remain in the UN. Please, vote against this Resolution.Bye, as if you feel that the passage of any resolution is reason to leave the UN then do so, but please don't use that to drum up support one way or the other for a proposal. As we will only say 'go in peace' and vote on the issue as we see it; not to keep you here in UN.

I don't think it's illegal. ALC means nations do not have to recognise a right to abortion; the immunity line obviously refers to nations.

From the context, I suppose so, but grammatically shouldn't the "them" used be referring to the citizens instead?

I disagree with where I think you're going with this. This proposal doesn't mean nations have to perform the operation; they just can't block it from being formed. Now, that discrimination clause (about which I do actually have some concerns - there are times when doctors obviously should take such considerations into mind) doesn't exclude "being able to pay for it". This isn't a socialised medicine proposal, so I don't see it as making governments have to provide for such procedures. As such, the funding of them is to me entirely separate for this proposal. So in this case, someone could be denied treatment, because they haven't paid for it - and in countries where there is socialised medicine, have not contributed to it through taxation. That would not to me seem to be illegal discrimination.

Well exactly: there is no provision for this in the proposal, which means it's a national right, still. Having a right to undergo medical procedures does not mean they need be done for free. For example, all UN citizens have a right to a toilet (Resolution #9). Doesn't mean they don't still have to buy one; it just means they cannot be actively prevented from having such. If you're worried, simply write it into all health workers' contracts that they may not administer treatment until payment is received.

I don't think that most of our doctors would accept such a limitation: We need to be able to have somebody else in the loop, to screen access to them or set priorities, and the clause restricting control over who gets what treatments to the patients & their attending phyisicians would prevent this...

StEd - why do you keep putting Yelda's name in bold text?

To make it clearer to readers that this is somebody else's proposal rather than one of mine...

I've actually de-approved this, because it doesn't give law enforcement personnel to view medical records when they may need to see them.

That's a very good point.

This could be a problem as doctors need to give orders to nurses and other hospital staff thus must pass on information that was in the consultation. Same with medical records nurses and other hospital staff need to view these often getting patient consent is not practical even impossible. Especialy if a doctor in ER gets in a patient who goes into a coma before any consent is given and the only one who has any knowledge of his problem might be the doctor. As saw that treatment can be given without consent in emergency but nothing on opening medical records to third parties. In this part

Also there is some concern on this partAs if the only two people know this patients health status then how is anyone going to know if they are a health rish or not. As all the patient has to do is not give consent to the doctor to release that information to a third party. The doctor can't even tell anyone the patient came in and refused treatment or care. Also he can't show the signed refusal to third parties since it would be part of the medical records and consent must be gotten to release those to third parties.
Wrong all the patient has to do is refuse treatment and the doctor can say nothing as long as they sign a form saying this. As stated since that form becomes part of medical records only patient and doctor know about it. Even if a doctor puts them in hospital unless patient gives consent he can't talk to anyone about why patient is in the hospital without patient consent.

Somebody has a duty to the patient to set standards of practice for medical staff and inspect them to see they meet these standards. Thus if not government who? As this one don't turn any UN gnomes loose to enforce it. so who does?

Yet more good reasons for opposing this proposal...

That's simple enough. Redefine "medical procedure" in your national legislation so that it excludes procedures you object to. If they're not legally considered medical procedures in your nation, you wouldn't be in violation of this resolution.

I suppose so...

Not really a problem. The resolution doesn't prevent you from placing prohibitively high costs on non-essential medical procedures for "health tourists". You'd be in conformity with the resolution: granting them access, but they would have to pay.

But who would charge them for it? As I read it, the fact that this proposal restricts decisions about treatments to the patients & their attending physicians means that neither the government nor hospital administrators can forbid treatment of people who don't pay... and I don't think most of our doctors would want to operate on a "Where's the money?" basis...

We would happily agree to a reasonable provision for privacy of medical records. But this provision would prevent all release of medical records without consent of the patient, even if sought pursuant to a lawfully and properly issued subpoena or warrant. Prosecution for health insurance fraud (a major concern) in which the "patients" were accomplices would be hamstrung. Action against physicians who perform illegal medical procedures would be next to impossible if the patient was a party to the crime or feels he or she would be embarrassed.

The resolution would also prevent access to patient records if the patient was deceased. He or she could not give consent. This could have devastating consequences for anything involving culpable negligence on the part of a physician: prosecutions for manslaughter, wrongful death lawsuits, and actions by medical licensing agencies and health care accreditation organizations. It would even prevent any meaningful studies of hospital morbidity rates.

We deeply regret that the author of this proposal chose to submit it without the benefit of comment in this forum or elsewhere. We believe that a reasonable accommodation of our objection could have been reached. As it is, we must strongly oppose this badly and dangerously flawed legislation.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Agreed.

Oh, and another problem...

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

A patient's '"attending physician" would probably have to be counted as their local GP, or the junior doctor on duty in the hospital ward to which they're initially admitted, and this clause would give that person -- whose knowledge of advanced surgical treatments might well be highly limited -- the right to send patients for advanced surgery without the actual surgical specialists involved having any say in the matter...

*cough*

Somehow I thought so......
Ah. Smears. Good work, ambassador.

In response to one objection:

The resolution would also prevent access to patient records if the patient was deceased. He or she could not give consent.
They're not a patient. They're dead. The resolution therefore leaves members states free to determine access as they wish in this circumstance.

Since that time genetic engineering of humanoids has been banned for all but a strictly enforced set of exceptions (severe genetic conditions, etc.). If this resolution is passed mothers will be able to claim that this is a treatment for their children to make them healthier, and we fear that we would not be able to legally deny this.


Read it carefully. Nowhere does this resolution say you cannot decide what constitutes "medical practice". It's up to your own national legislation.

Having said that, it does appear this resolution enables (and obliges) doctors to withhold information which may be critical to criminal investigations.

Blah blah blah
Lets make a resolution because we dont have one yet.
Blah blah blah

I think not. The Arm of Visipilio votes No.

Why have you only covered the safe discriminations? I can not vote for a measure which does not protect all people.

Eh?

In response to one objection:

Originally Posted by Ausserland
The resolution would also prevent access to patient records if the patient was deceased. He or she could not give consent.

They're not a patient. They're dead. The resolution therefore leaves members states free to determine access as they wish in this circumstance.

We must disagree with our distinguished colleague from Ecopoeia. A "personal medical record" remains a "personal medical record" even after the patient is deceased. The resolution makes no provision for any change in status of the record or requirements for confidentiality after death. Therefore, the requirement remains in effect. Reasonable? No. And that is our objection.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have voted against the current UN resolution for the following reasons:

Description: NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

A dubious justification for a health initiative. Must everything relate to the capitalist urge to consume and produce? No major objection, but annoying.

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

Agreed.

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

Vague, but acceptable.

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

Agreed.

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

Agreed.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

Previous UN legislation is the only mechanism that can curtail this "right"? What of the laws and customs of the several nations? If a nation deems a particular procedure to be dangerous or unnecessary, they must allow the procedure to be performed? This sounds like grafting UN authority where it does not belong.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.

Public health exemptions should be listed here or at least mentioned in general. I'm assuming this paragraph, through the phrase "endanger the health of others" is meant to supersede those patients who would refuse treatment for Typhoid, AIDS, TB or Hepatitis. Agreed in principle but not in execution. Also, verbal or written communication could be impossible for some patients in certain debilitative conditions.

(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

Who is to determine the mental state of the patient, and how? Are there internationally recognized criteria which positively identify this state? This is not nearly specific enough to be adopted as international law.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

Agreed. This whole middle section (articles IV-VII), as a Patients' Right to Privacy Act would pass muster for a yes vote in my region.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

Agreed, but redundant per other resolutions guaranteeing human rights and denouncing discrimination. There is also the nebulous area of sapient non-humans to consider.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, 'patient' may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

How was the age of 16 made the demarcation? That is not the age of majority in my nation, and I am sure it is not the age of majority in many others. Add to that the fact that some nations' inhabitants never reach 16 years of age due to their idiosyncratic biology, and it's a sizeable problem.

A concern was also raised in the debate within Greater Seattle that this article and others might be stretched to allow for elective cosmetic surgery (the dreaded "what about the children" 16-year-old breast implant fear).

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

I am puzzled at the attention to detail in this paragraph. THIS is where the resolution gets specific? Certainly there may be nations within which conjoined twins are a relatively common occurence, but it can't be that many (Intangelon hasn't seen a pair in 35 years). This level of specificty is absent in much of the rest of this resolution.

I know the arguments against ratification of this act will suffer from the traditional "Title Syndrome" form of mob-voting, thus rendering loyal opposition largely impotent. Also, I wish to make it clear that I believe this resolution is a very good effort, and one I applaud. However, even very good efforts can fall short. My region has asked me to decline, and after some debate, I have come to agree with my regional colleagues. Greater Seattle votes no.

Though this amendment seems certain to pass, with the current vote scale as tipped as it is, I cannot help but voice the objections of the nation of Apollynia.

Consider clause II:

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

This is an intrusion into the sovereignty of member states. Suppose a member state has objections to abortions (which Apollynia does not, but the principle remains). This bill would give the U.N. the de facto power to rule on the legality of abortions for member states. Or suppose a criminal escapes from jail and wants immediate cosmetic surgery to disguise his or her appearance- under this legislation, that criminal would have the unlimited right to do so.

Consider clause III(i):
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

However, this legislation makes no claim as to what is decided by "possible." Suppose a doctor, working in bad faith for a local political entity, considers a man's objections to being forcably abducted by an imminent police state to be "delirium" or some other such state, which the doctor then decides to be debilitating and so administers incapacitating drugs on the spot? This legislation makes no allowance for the review of such medical decisions. In essence, this bill gives open opportunity for doctors to enforce police states.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

This bill makes no allotment for what happens if the patient is killed. Do government-employed doctors have the right to hide the cause of death from the family of a protestor or political activist? That is the subtext of this legislation.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

Combat medics of one nation no longer have the right to refuse to treat their wounded enemies on the field of battle.

As such, I strongly believe that this amendment needs to be fought and turned down, for the sake of the maintenance of the sovereignty of the nation-state.

Though this amendment seems certain to pass, with the current vote scale as tipped as it is, I cannot help but voice the objections of the nation of Apollynia.

Consider clause II:

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

This is an intrusion into the sovereignty of member states. Suppose a member state has objections to abortions (which Apollynia does not, but the principle remains). This bill would give the U.N. the de facto power to rule on the legality of abortions for member states.


Actually, no, it can't. The phrase "except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights" means that this proposal defers to all current resolutions, including the Abortion Legality Convention, which leaves that particular issue up to national governments to decide.

That said, however, the people of Cluichstan still oppose this proposal.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The anti-discrimination clause seems somewhat problematic to the Kingdom of New Richtenstein in two--perhaps previously addressed--regards. First, "No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds" seems vague with respect to the "other such grounds" part of the article. What are these grounds and what leeway does a government have in interpreting said "grounds?" Related to this is our concern that sexual orientation is not included in this anti-discrimination clause. Our kingdom recognizes the rights of the GLBTQ community to receive any and all medical treatment necessary. However, we would like to express our concern that certain nations in the UN, perhaps due to their own views, might be able to avoid providing medical care to "other" sexualities due to their lack of inclusion in this resolution.

The Federation of Emancipators has no choice but to oppose this resolution due to the issues already arised. It is too open ended, especially in regards to the right of a doctor to do procedures without consent. The restrictions on consultations and medical records are also a bit much.

We would also like to say that most of the issues dealt with in this resolution should be left up to individual nations.

Mt Sam is opposed!

This resolution robs us of the right to oppose immoral medical practices - we employ Doctors, not deities.

It also jepordises compulsory organ donation! one of our important social policies! especially since we can not *sell* organs like our capitalist brethren.

This resolution would heavily disrupt our legitimate state policies

Good basic concept, but I'm against it for several reasons. It basically just went too far:

#1)Third parties include insurance companies, and they need to know for basis of payment.
#2)This conflicts and takes away the nations right to make their own rulings on abortion laws and euthanasia.
#3)If the patient knows the nurses full name that is taking care of him/her, any death that may result not from bad care, but simply from natural complications will then place blame and negative public opinions on that nurse, and it may result in legal action because the family of the patient is not denied the name by the resolution nor the public. It just says they have the right to know, not that is kept to him alone. Which if it is kept to him, the immediate family knows anyhow.
#4)If conjoined twins cannot make their decision, and they have very slightly different complications, the treatment may help one while harming the other, thus contradicting itself earlier.

Sorry, but revise and try again, I'm sure it'll make queue

Yes, I may not be opposed to a revision.

But Patients lack the training (and often soundness of mind) to run the medical system.

This resolution practically allows patients to treat themselves!

What if they decide they would rather try and cure their cancer with carrot juice than medicine??

Doctors are trained for a reason.

We also have a problem with allowing a patient to have ANY medical procedure they wish. The patient should have a choice, but perhaps only out of procedures that relate to some health problem they have. While vanity and other such procedures should not be removed from the whole resolution, perhaps it should be exempted from just the parts that group it with procedures that are actually needed.

Mt Sam believes that doctors, not patients, know best when it comes to medical decisions.

Mt Sam asserts its right to decide if some forms of medical procedure are immoral.

If a doctor gives a patient a choice between medicine A and medicine B, then this is all very well. But anything else is lunacy.

Should a hypochondriac be allowed to choose their own treatment?

I'm sure this has been pointed out multiple times, but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, so here it goes again...

NOTING that a healthy population is a more productive population and the better the overall health of citizens, the better a nation’s economy can thrive;

Starts off strong. Let's call this Positive Point #1. Sound logic there...

BELIEVING that all persons have the right to participate in the assessment of their needs, the development of their treatment plans and to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

...but not here. No Positive Point for this paragraph. Most people don't have the ability to participate in assessment of their needs (i.e. diagnosis) or in development of treatment plans. This statement would be better served by saying the patient has the right to a full accounting of an assessment of their needs and final say in the decision to treat or not treat the condition.

ASSERTING that medical professionals must be able to provide these services without government interference in the doctor/patient relationship or corruption;

This reads like the doctor/patient either have a relationship or they have a corruption. I think you meant "government interference in or corruption of..." I like this. We'll call it Positive Point #2.

FURTHER ASSERTING that patients have the right to expect confidential treatment of all communications and records about their care and the right to receive information concerning their condition and treatment;

Do they have a full and unabridged right to confidentiality? What if my country has a socialized health care? Or HMOs? How will the doctors bill their services? It seems to me this clause would force the patient to pay the full amount of their health care; no one else is allowed to see their records? (As a bonus question, what if my nation has a law requiring parents to be notified when a minor requests an abortion? Discuss...) Overall, this paragraph gets labelled Negative Point #1.

The General Assembly of the United Nations declares that:

(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

So who does the decision rest with? The patient or the physician? What if they disagree? What if *gasp* there's more than one attending physician? What about second opinions? Who do we listen to? Negative Point #2.

(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

So who will enforce this? Who will pay for it? Since this is an organization of governments, I am assuming The Government is supposed to make sure this happens. What happened to Positive Point #2? You know... the one about no government interference in the doctor/patient relationship? This one gets a double whammy, getting its own Negative Point #3 and cancelling Positive Point #2. Ouch.

(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.

I like it. More power to the patient. Positive Point #2A (seeing as how PP #2 is gone).

(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

Who gets to determine "emergency circumstances, including the patient's physical or mental state"? You could dock the QEII in that loophole.

(IV) Patients have the right to be given full and accurate information about the nature of their illnesses, diagnostic procedures, the proposed treatment and the costs involved.

Positive Point #3.

(V) Patients have the right to know by name the persons directly and personally involved in their care.

What is "directly involved?" The watch nurse? The lab tech doing blood work? Where do you draw the line? This Article is pretty worthless.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

What about law enforcement (assuming a legal warrant)? DNA evidence can be the deciding factor in many modern prosecutions. Negative Point #4.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

See above.

(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds.

Combining this with Article II, this Resolution now says, "Everyone has a right to any medical procedure, and no nation can discriminate between patients on the grounds of nationality." In effect, this means that anyone can get treatment from anywhere anytime for any reason. Which means that non-tax-paying foreigners can come to my country, get free healthcare, and my treasury has to foot the bill. Negative Point #5.

(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

My citizens don't achieve their majority until they're 26. Negative Point #6.

(X) In cases involving adult conjoined twins who are both capable of exercising their rights under this act, acceptance or refusal of treatment shall be required of each twin. In cases involving minor conjoined twins or in instances where one or both twins are incapable of giving consent, decisions shall rest with the guardian or physician as per Articles III(i) and IX.

What if one twin says yes and one twin says no? Article II would require the procedure to be performed, while this Article would not be fulfilled because both twins have not refused the procedure. The part about minors specifies either a guardian or physician has the decision-making power. Which one? Negative Points #7 & 8.

So, by a score of 8 to 3, Al Andalusi will be voting Nay on this Proposition.

I believe that this resolution is flawed and can use some reworking. However, I believe that patients should be given more rights immediately, rather than spend time trying to make a perfect bill. That is why Clerone is supporting the bill, and will also support any changes made later on to improve the resolution, but this is needed now.

I believe that this resolution is flawed and can use some reworking. However, I believe that patients should be given more rights immediately, rather than spend time trying to make a perfect bill. That is why Clerone is supporting the bill, and will also support any changes made later on to improve the resolution, but this is needed now.
Unfortunately 'fixing' it is a lengthy process, much longer than simply regecting this one and putting a new resolution up for vote. Since we can not make ammendments we would need to repeal this and put the new bill up for vote anyways in order to change it later.

Should a hypochondriac be allowed to choose their own treatment?

Certainly. They should be able to choose between any of the treatments for hypochondria. ;)

Sithya is voting against this. As part of our commitment to capitalism, we do not have a national healthcare system. We also are against interference in the free market for healthcare - and this proposal does intrude on market forces.

I will be joining the ranks opposing this - though I note that, as of now, the vote is roughly 5:2, but nearly all the positions and arguments here (most of them quite good) are against. My primary problems with this resolution:


(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician.

Repeating a point here, but this doesn't allow for second opinions or situations where multiple physicians are involved - and, it states "physician", so what of specialists?


(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights.

No definition of "medical procedure" - and while, yes, a nation supposedly gets to create their own, this has massive loophole potential.


(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.
(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

No clear-cut definitions here, either - who judges whether it is a "threat to others", or what "physical or mental state" requires the physician to make the decision?


(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

This point has been made several times, but I feel it's worth repeating: In any situation where the patient doesn't want information given out, but it is required (criminal investigation, insurance reasons, whatever) for a legitimage use, there is no way to get said information.


(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act.

Again, this seems arbitrary - at the least, it should state "the age of majority" or some such. One earlier poster has the ago of majority at 26; that's a ten year difference.

Overall, while the spirit and concept of this resolution are excellent, the resolution itself has far too many loopholes or point of poor definition. Eakia opposes, and highly recommends that all others do as well. If it does pass, a repeal shall be swiftly drafted, likely as not.

Results are in from day 1 of my campaign. I received several telegrams from delegates who changed their vote and decided to vote against this proposal based on information I compiled from this debate. I can not be sure that I actually got to read all of the telegrams sent to me (I can only have 15 at a time and I know I received at least 15 because 1 I was saving had been pushed out of my box, so who knows how many others I missed. Oh well, it hasn't made that big of an impact on the numbers, but at least I'm trying right?

For the various reasons stated in this thread, which parallels the thoughts of the Andaran cabinet, we have mandated our UN delegate to vote against this resolution.

Once again the United Nations has chosen to put forth a resolution intended to usurp the authority of individual nations. The intent of the UN is to make law which governs how Nations deal with each other, not how they treat thier citizens. Don't get me wrong I don't disagree with some of the things in the current resolution. But if I wanted my citizens to have these rights I would enact local legislation granting them. And like many other resolutions it seems to be and attempt to force western ideals and ethics on the rest of the world.

Gibalonia will vote against this resolution, as it limits the knowledge of the government regarding the medical history of the patient, and limits our all-powerful police force from obtaining this information without consent. My government's power must be all-encompassing, and the UN is interfering in my government's structure with this resolution.

I think that patients should be accepted to any hospital even if they are a differin race,nationallity,gender,color,age or anything elese I forgot to mention.:rolleyes: :mp5: If that happens they should be accepted.

The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike will be voting no, for several reasons, the majority of which concern a handful of what are seen as dangerous precedents.

Our biggest concern is the thesis statement of preventing government interference in its citizens' medical treatment. This, and several other items listed below would potentially prevent Universal Health Care initiatives and minimum medical standards for doctors and nurses.


"(I) Decisions concerning medical treatment, medical procedures and treatment options shall rest with the patient and his or her attending physician."

Paired with the thesis of preventing government interference in the doctor-patient relationship, this prevents governments from establishing preventative health care measures, and severely limits their ability to protect citizens by establishing standards for medical treatment. Exceptions must be included in this clause for the establishment of Safety Standards, Judicial recrimination for violating national law or committing malpractice, fraud, or needlessly endangering the life of a patient, as well as determining frivolous or morally questionable medical procedures.


"(II) All citizens of all UN member nations have the right to undergo any medical procedure, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has granted them immunity from giving such rights."

The Grand Duchy feels this is neither economically realistic, nor legally specific enough to establish the medical status of citizens, soldiers, or diplomats operating in foreign nations. It also can be abused in order to force medical institutions to perform procedures for which they are not equipped or trained.


"(III) Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others."

We are concerned that this clause can be applied in morally dubious circumstances. For example, if a legal guardian chooses to refuse medical treatment for a minor or compromised adult, the Grand Duchy believes room must be made for doctors or governments to protect the health of the minor if it is in conflict with the guardian's interests.


"(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient."

We agree with many of the previously stated concerns regarding this clause. Namely, that it leaves no room for a Nation's judiciary or governing medical body to establish health notifications regarding communicable diseases that may pose a risk to the community at large.


"(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient."

We feel this clause poses the same problems as the one above, and both need to be replaced by clauses that allow exceptions where the confidentiality of a patient's medical information is in conflict with the health and safety of others.


"(VIII) No medical facility or physician shall discriminate between patients on grounds of religion, race, sex, nationality, country of birth, or other such grounds."

We recommend replacing this clause with one that only prohibits discrimination on the basis of Nationality for emergancy medical treatment only, and not elective treatment, as doctors who's nations apply Universal Health Care initiatives require the ability to confirm nationality and establish coverage prior to treatment. We enthusiastically support the intitative to prevent discrimination on all of the other (non-national) grounds listed in the clause.


"(IX) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of 16, or is an adult unable to understand his or her rights under this Act."

This clause is not legally specific enough, and could be abused to prevent those under the age of 16 from making medically informed decisions regarding their own treatment. Where such treatment may be in conflict with the interests of the legal guardian, Doctors and/or Governments must have an exception allowing for the protection of the minor's rights.


The Grand Duchy of Gilbert Pike hopes this well-intentioned, but flawed and dangerous resolution is defeated, and replaced with one that has a broader agenda of protections that do not limit a nation's ability to establish either private or public health care systems, and apply legislation to govern the medical standards and practices of its country.

We are upset by the fact that this resolution is overwhelmingly favored, though the reasonable discussion of it in this thread shows its faults. Its really quite frustrating.

In the end, this resolution comes down to the individual beliefs of the states involved. Contemplatina, for one, fully believes that patients do have all those rights. However, it may be ill suited to dictatorial or theocratic (for lack of a better word) regimes.

For my part, I have voted for this resolution. It is flawed in many respects, as some of our honored delegates have pointed out, but we of Contemplatina believe its benefits outweigh its faults. We give this resolution a semi-reluctant approval.

Sithya is voting against this. As part of our commitment to capitalism, we do not have a national healthcare system. We also are against interference in the free market for healthcare - and this proposal does intrude on market forces.

Pardon my asking the honourable delegate, but from where does he draw the conclusion that this interferes with market forces necessarily?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The People's Republic of TheMuffinKing has voted for this proposition. We feel that at some point, a government representative of the people must support the people.

The Democratic Republic of Londim is for this Act. The people should choose their medical treatments and should be well aware of what is happening to them as outlined in the proposal.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

(VII) Personal medical records and the contents of such records shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

The great nation of New Arpad agrees with these paragraphs in principle but there is still an open point to be discussed. This open point is how a nation is supposed to deal with infectious diseases. A lot of countries have laws that force doctors to inform the authorities about incidents involving infectious diseases so that it is possible to recognise an epedemic outbreak for what it is before it is too late. It should be needless to say that such information has to be treated as confidentally as even possible, but one could still argue that such procedures would still violate patients' rights.

The Great Nation of New Arpad will not vote on this issue until this point has been clarified.

The language of this Act presents many problems. It is simply too vague in many cases. Medical Professionals in my Nation are highly discouraged by this Act and have as our Government to stand in full opposition.

(VI) Consultations between patients and physicians shall be held in the strictest confidentiality and shall not be made available to any third party without the consent of the patient.

Line 6 would increase the amount of Medical errors greatly. It will generate a large amount of paperwork, which will cripple many health care establishments. If these consultations are held to the strictist confidence, other members of the health care team will be severely impacted. How will the other members of an instution's community serve the patients properly? How will Nurses, Physician Assistants, Techs, etc. receive the information they need to do their job properly?

How will insurance agencies receive the data they need?

I urge you to strongly oppose this Act!

The Most High Emperor of Mau Mau Bamboozle

Personally, I think it's about time a Patients' Bill of Rights came up.

I just wish it hadn't been this one. :mad:

If this passes I might just be inspired to submit a whole number of issues based on the potential abuses of the doctrines empowered by the resolution.

Results are in from day 1 of my campaign. I received several telegrams from delegates who changed their vote and decided to vote against this proposal based on information I compiled from this debate. I can not be sure that I actually got to read all of the telegrams sent to me (I can only have 15 at a time and I know I received at least 15 because 1 I was saving had been pushed out of my box, so who knows how many others I missed. Oh well, it hasn't made that big of an impact on the numbers, but at least I'm trying right?
A gallant effort, which I applaud wholeheartedly. However, this resolution is benefitting (as others sometimes suffer) from "Title Syndrome". An incurable malady in which the title is the only piece of information that the vast majority of UN voters use to come to their decisions.

Thanks for trying.

A gallant effort, which I applaud wholeheartedly. However, this resolution is benefitting (as others sometimes suffer) from "Title Syndrome". An incurable malady in which the title is the only piece of information that the vast majority of UN voters use to come to their decisions.

Thanks for trying.

Perhaps I should consider renaming my counterterrorism proposal the "Free Sex for All Act." :p

Can anything be done to convince the Author of this Act to remove their support? I'm afraid the impact of this Act will destroy the worlds' health due to much of the unfortunate wording.

I'd afraid it is too late. We're all going to die and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Muahahahahahahaha!

Oh and this resolution will probably pass, not that the two have anything to do with each other. I'm pretty much betting the later's going to happen for most of us before the former.

Anyone up for a repeal?

In the end, this resolution comes down to the individual beliefs of the states involved. Contemplatina, for one, fully believes that patients do have all those rights. However, it may be ill suited to dictatorial or theocratic (for lack of a better word) regimes.

Not so true. Teufelanbetung is highly democratic and socialist. But we believe that our police force needs rights to stamp out crime in order to protect our law abiding citizens. This bill does not give enough rights to the police force.

While these benefits are good, the propensity this bill has to allow others to break the law outweighs the benefits. Besides, Teufelanbetung already has protections and confidentiality for patients.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/19063/page=display_region)

I know that this point has been made before but Ialso have a major problem with sections 5&6 of this resolution which talk about increasing the privacy of patients medical information. That presents a major problem in court cases and police investigations and can pressent problems for national security. I aprove of the rest of this resolution aside from those two parts but as long as those two parts are in this resolution I can not in all good concionce support it. Though it seems rather unlikely that the resolution will fail unfortionatly. Bt now that I think about it, this resolution really doesn't have anyting to do with what the UN is here for. The UN was made to pass amendments dealing with nation to nation relationships, this doesn't do anything but undermine the authourity of the individual nations. So even without the problems that I mentioned earlier in this post I still could not support this relolution

I think there needs to be something regarding contagious diseases, I will not place my (thus my region's) support behind this bill because I believe that patients declining treatment for contagious diseases could become dangerous to world health.

A gallant effort, which I applaud wholeheartedly. However, this resolution is benefitting (as others sometimes suffer) from "Title Syndrome". An incurable malady in which the title is the only piece of information that the vast majority of UN voters use to come to their decisions.

Thanks for trying.
*sigh*
Yeah, you're right. And it seems unavoidable now that this will pass.

And I have made no further progress in changing peoples votes. All I've received in the last while are drive-by arguments- "Oh United Planets c2161... I disagree!"

*sigh*

biggest problem with the resolution is section II, some medical procedures should be illeagal

I think there needs to be something regarding contagious diseases, I will not place my (thus my region's) support behind this bill because I believe that patients declining treatment for contagious diseases could become dangerous to world health.
I am not so sure I understand what the delegate from Ferretburg is saying. How does a patients' bill of rights undermine treatment of contagious diseases? It is meant to improve world health, not destroy it. Please elaborate for us.

I'd afraid it is too late. We're all going to die and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Muahahahahahahaha!

Oh and this resolution will probably pass, not that the two have anything to do with each other. I'm pretty much betting the later's going to happen for most of us before the former.

Anyone up for a repeal?
;)

I am not so sure I understand what the delegate from Ferretburg is saying. How does a patients' bill of rights undermine treatment of contagious diseases? It is meant to improve world health, not destroy it. Please elaborate for us.
I thought that would be intitutively obvious to even the casual observer. If a patient with a highly contageous disease came into a hospital then unless the patient by their own volition releases that data, the hospital cannot act on that information, because the record of the treatment is private.

Remember folks, you voted for this. You will have to live and suffer with it.

I am not so sure I understand what the delegate from Ferretburg is saying. How does a patients' bill of rights undermine treatment of contagious diseases? It is meant to improve world health, not destroy it. Please elaborate for us.

Declaration III (Patients may refuse treatment and such refusal shall be verbal or in writing provided that such refusal does not endanger the health of others.) is at least phrased to help some small amount with that.

Not that it matters to Schartlefritzen. With the high likelyhood of this passing, we've already withdrawn membership in the United Nations.

Knight Matthieu Tertulien
Ambassador to the UN
Imperial Land of Schartlefritz

Alfred Sweynsson MD rises to his feet and makes an announcement _

"The government of St Edmund, considering the probable ill-effects of this resolution to be more than we wish our nation to suffer (and the final straw, on top of certain other resolutions that we also opposed), hereby withdraws our nation from membership in the United Nations.

It's no good any of you trying to "baggsy" our office, because that -- as at least some of you already know -- is actually aboard an airship that was moored to this building's roof rather than within the building itself, and the airship will be detaching itself from the mooring-mast as soon as my delegation has paid its bills in the bar and assembled onboard. I suppose you could try to occupy the airship's mooring-mast, but arrangements have been made through DEFCON for that to be guarded until another member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth chooses to join this organisation in our place..."

* * * * *

(OOC: You can expect to see the fairly new nation of 'St Edmundan Antarctic' become a UN member at some point in the next couple of days...)

Resolution Title Syndrome takes another victim, and one of my favorites. Damn it, St. Edmund, please reconsider! THE BAR WILL GO UNDER WITHOUT YOUR DELEGATION!

Mgister Jubal Harshaw
Intangelon
UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

Alfred Sweynsson MD rises to his feet and makes an announcement _

"The government of St Edmund, considering the probable ill-effects of this resolution to be more than we wish our nation to suffer (and the final straw, on top of certain other resolutions that we also opposed), hereby withdraws our nation from membership in the United Nations.

It's no good any of you trying to "baggsy" our office, because that -- as at least some of you already know -- is actually aboard an airship that was moored to this building's roof rather than within the building itself, and the airship will be detaching itself from the mooring-mast as soon as my delegation has paid its bills in the bar and assembled onboard. I suppose you could try to occupy the airship's mooring-mast, but arrangements have been made through DEFCON for that to be guarded until another member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth chooses to join this organisation in our place..."

* * * * *

(OOC: You can expect to see the fairly new nation of 'St Edmundan Antarctic' become a UN member at some point in the next couple of days...)

Don't forget your mooring fees.

*wonders what would happen if there was a premature demooring....

I would like to congraulate the authors, co-authors and everyone who has worked to make this resolution a smashing success. Now that "patient" records are no longer available to prying eyes of the courts I can proceed with my experments on my "willing" patients at full speed ahead. My previous projet created the race of naval werepenguins who are now fully participating members of the Antarctic Oasis. My next project will be a race of wereshark lawyers who will craft resolutions in the UN to bring the member nations to their knees begging for mercy.

Sincerely
The Rani.

(Now Mr. UN Gnome, please sit still. This won't hurt ... much.) :eek:

I guess that also means that we can begin expanding our carnivorous Rhino (carnivorhino) experiments to include rhino/human hybrids. I think we'll call them......errrr......rhinoceruman. No. Hucerous. Naaah. Screw it. Were-rhino.

It's no good any of you trying to "baggsy" our office, because that -- as at least some of you already know -- is actually aboard an airship that was moored to this building's roof rather than within the building itself, and the airship will be detaching itself from the mooring-mast as soon as my delegation has paid its bills in the bar and assembled onboard. I suppose you could try to occupy the airship's mooring-mast, but arrangements have been made through DEFCON for that to be guarded until another member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth chooses to join this organisation in our place..."
Three full Maintainence of Order Department Squads that have been deployed to insure that no unauthorized personnell will get any where close to your mooring spire.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department

-curses the forum for not working when I had something worthwhile, witty, and Norderian to say-

And damnit, another missed opportunity to bagsy an office!

Thankfully my health care system is owned by the government, making patient records a government document. There shouldn't be too much red tape to weasel around in order to loophole this Resolution.

Is anyone working on a Repeal yet, or shall I do the honors?

Oh this just keeps getting better and better.... First this was passed and now.....

*cough* (http://www.nationstates.net/07836/page=UN_proposal)

I guess that also means that we can begin expanding our carnivorous Rhino (carnivorhino) experiments to include rhino/human hybrids. I think we'll call them......errrr......rhinoceruman. No. Hucerous. Naaah. Screw it. Were-rhino.

Were-Penguins, Were-Sharks and now Were-Rhinos. Oh where will it end?

Let's not make any comments about our Were-Ends. They never justify the Were-means.

The Government of Autarkia will vote against this resolution. We have no objections with disabled people doing education, but this is going too far...


2) All disabled persons shall have the right to an education comparable to that of their non-disabled peers, the exception being where limitations require a special education program that can teach necessary life skills;


This article implies that if some mother of an 25 year old mental disabled person, with the mental capacities of a 8 year old wants to study...say... higher physics, the government has to pay for a educational path that is going nowhere.

The government of Autarkiana will not support any such legislation

NAY

(i) A physician may give emergency medical treatment without the patient’s consent if, because of the emergency circumstances, including the patient’s physical or mental state, it is not possible to obtain his consent.

So if ones religion prohibits recieving any form of surgery or medical attention...this allows a doctor to give treatment in certain circumstances without needing to consult family members, individuals with power of attorney, etc.

Scary!

Armless Democrats

The Government of Autarkia will vote against this resolution. We have no objections with disabled people doing education, but this is going too far...



This article implies that if some mother of an 25 year old mental disabled person, with the mental capacities of a 8 year old wants to study...say... higher physics, the government has to pay for a educational path that is going nowhere.

The government of Autarkiana will not support any such legislation

NAY
I suppose that such a disabled person could apply, but he would have to live up to the same standards as a person who is not disabled, or at least that's how I understand it. I assume that we can agree that a heavily mentally disabled person could never keep there.

Were-Penguins, Were-Sharks and now Were-Rhinos. Oh where will it end?

Let's not make any comments about our Were-Ends. They never justify the Were-means.


Would that be a were-pun? I were-hate those.

it looks fine to me:) :cool:

Were-Penguins, Were-Sharks and now Were-Rhinos. Oh where will it end?

Let's not make any comments about our Were-Ends. They never justify the Were-means.

OOC: I remember reading about one player's character in an old D&D campaign who was a 'Were-House'! ;)

In response to one or two comments about special education that seem to be relating to "Rights of the Disabled": this is not the thread for that. Official tags have been requested for the thread "Revised Draft for Rights of the Disabled", as that is where all official debate and discussion regarding the resolution currently at vote should be directed.

Thank you.

-Tarmsden (author of "Rights of the Disabled")